Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 142

Thread: Alpha Philosophy & Religion

  1. #41
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    The only way Te has to study an human is to treat it as an object.
    Basically that's the essence of it, I think. At least it is very natural for Te to see everything it focuses on as an object to be scrutinized and analyzed from a non-emotional, detached, impersonal, objective view point. That is clearly different from Ti, at least from how Jung describes the nature of introverted thinking.
    1) Ti or Te doesn't define your perception of reality, it determines your response to the reality you have defined.
    2) Ne defines reality in a manner that's "objective" and independant of the observer, whereas Ni does not.

    Ni and Te working together are about making quick, concrete decisions, based on a subjective and nebulous view of what is real and unreal. Te gives a way to decide when there is enough concrete evidence, but choosing between options that are not well-defined already is impossible. Instead, Ni is often used to downplay the objective nature of the situation until coming to a subjective conclusion is rendered superfluous.

    I don't think either type is inherently more objective or subjective. Both have both sides, emphasized in different ways. Static sees the choices we make as subjective responses to an objectively defined reality. Dynamic sees subjective aspects of reality, which are changable, reacting to the decisions we make using objective criterion.

    The philosophy of dualism (dividing the universe into strictly supernatural and natural components) is Ni/Te in my opinion. It is an admission of defeat in the arena of observing reality objectively, and a judgment that the subtler aspects of reality are not something we can pick apart and explain logically.

  2. #42
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Might I inquire as to whether or not what I posted earlier would qualify as an Alpha religion and Alpha philosophers?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  3. #43
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I have a question -- what does that hypothesis have to do with Te and Ti? Why is the "humans-as-agents" a Ti thing, and the "humans-as-objects" a Te thing?
    Probably, because Te is external-dynamic, and Ti is internal-static. The only way Te has to study an human is to treat it as an object.
    Yes, but when we are talking about philosophers, we are talking of real people, not of functions.

    A person who's a Te type will inevitably also look at humans using Fi, just like a person who's a Ti type will inevitably look at them also via Fe.

    Also, regarding the "humans-as-agents-or-objects" thing -- how does Karl Marx fit into this? Marxism can be interpreted as having "humans-as-agents" because they are the ones who move history; on the other hand, they are also "objects" since humans individually are nothing but pieces in the class struggle, which follows the inescapable laws of history.

    Personally I think there is nothing to this distinction, but I am ready to be proven wrong if someone can explain the above point on Marxism, for instance.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #44
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Might I inquire as to whether or not what I posted earlier would qualify as an Alpha religion and Alpha philosophers?
    I think Marx and Philo were Alpha, not sure about the others you listed.

    Also Thomas Paine, I think.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  5. #45
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Might I inquire as to whether or not what I posted earlier would qualify as an Alpha religion and Alpha philosophers?
    I think Marx and Philo were Alpha, not sure about the others you listed.

    Also Thomas Paine, I think.
    Interesting. I thought that Philo would be the one that people would not know and that Spinoza and Maimonides would be the ones people would know, but maybe you know of them, but not necessarily enough to assess their types. I was thinking about putting Valentinus (founder of Valentinian Gnosticism) in the list to be reviewed, but he may have valued .
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Also, regarding the "humans-as-agents-or-objects" thing -- how those Karl Marx fit into this? Marxism can be interpreted as having "humans-as-agents" because they are the ones who move history; on the other hand, they are also "objects" since humans individually are nothing but pieces in the class struggle, which follows the inescapable laws of history.
    Correct. Marxism might be interpreted either way, but if we take other aspects of Marxism into consideration too, we notice that it is a clearly relativistic theory. Marxism relativizes notions such as "truth" and "right", which are said to be meaningful only in relation to a specific framework -- for example the perspective of the working class. So it fits nicely in the Subjectivistic group of philosophies.

    If we look at how Marxism has been developed afterwards, especially since the 60s and 70s when The New Left movement came into being, we see a rather clear tendency to lay stress on the importance of not reducing people to objects.

    Marxism has always been opposed to the kind of science I call Te-based science. Central to Te-based science is Hume's insistence on the impossibility of deriving an ought from an is, but Marxism denies that premise and instead insists that "Marxist science" must be value laden, that it should be used as a tool to serve the interests of a group of people. The same tendency is even more clearly accentuated nowadays in Feminism and various forms of post-modernism, which are all variations emanating from the same anti-scientific, relativistic tree that can be traced back to Hegel.

    Marxism is Ti because it dismisses the importance of testing the theory against reality. Marxism has been falsified over and over again, and yet people refuse to abandon it. It is a clear example of a theoretical filter -- glasses -- that you put on if you don't want to see the world as it really is. To see everything through a theoretical framework is typical of the Subjectivists, who usually denies the existence of any "objective" reality. Marxists, post-modernists like Richard Rorty, and most Feminists, are all united in their refusal to accept science and its methods and in their critique of the notion of objectivity.

  7. #47
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Can you explain why you have lumped Feminism with all of this?
    Just to jump ahead of where I know Phaedrus will likely say: While there are different branches of Feminism, many of the influential feminist philosophers come from the Continental tradition of Marx and Kant, which is more associated with . So while there are feminists of all types, many of the feminist philosophers have been about categories and relationships between objects (gender-based ). At least, this is a condensed version of what Phaedrus is likely to post.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  8. #48
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    If we look at how Marxism has been developed afterwards, especially since the 60s and 70s when The New Left movement came into being, we see a rather clear tendency to lay stress on the importance of not reducing people to objects.
    Be that as it may, later developments of Marxism are totally irrelevant for the purposes of using socionics to type philosophers. Aren't they? If we are to correlate aspects of a philosophy to the philosopher's type, and specifically the use of Te or Ti, we have to stick to their original version. If you look at "later developments", you are already contaminating it with someone else's contributions. We don't even know what Marx would have thought of the New Left, do we?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Correct. Marxism might be interpreted either way, but if we take other aspects of Marxism into consideration too, we notice that it is a clearly relativistic theory. Marxism relativizes notions such as "truth" and "right", which are said to be meaningful only in relation to a specific framework -- for example the perspective of the working class. So it fits nicely in the Subjectivistic group of philosophies.
    Marxism fits well within Ti, but for the reason you are mentioning.

    Marxism does not relativize truth in the sense you seem to be saying. Marxism's stance is clearly that there is only one truth, that of the laws of history and of class struggle.

    Now, it does say that members of different classes will have different perceptions of the truth - so that, say, a feudal lord can't help but see society (or everything else) through the eyes of his class (which was the reasoning used by later supposed Marxists for very often just killing them all). Which is a perspective that comes naturally to Fe-Ti.

    But that is not the same as admitting that those different "truths" are equally valid -- Marxism is clearly "persuaded" of the rightness of its own truth, and that all the others are wrong.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Can you explain why you have lumped Feminism with all of this?
    Just to jump ahead of where I know Phaedrus will likely say: While there are different branches of Feminism, many of the influential feminist philosophers come from the Continental tradition of Marx and Kant, which is more associated with . So while there are feminists of all types, many of the feminist philosophers have been about categories and relationships between objects (gender-based ). At least, this is a condensed version of what Phaedrus is likely to post.
    Good guess, Logos. Every version of Feminism has the same basic structure as Marxism. It is about dividing people into groups, and the different groups have different perspectives, different understandings of the world, and there is no objective truth, only the interests of each group, and the most important group is the one you (should) belong to yourself.

    Many (most) versions of Feminism are direct outgrowths of the Marxist (Hegelian) tree. Almost every one of these versions has philosophical constructionism as one of its most important premises. And constructionism is relativistic and clearly Ti. I have written some more about this here: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=5...inism&start=60

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    If we look at how Marxism has been developed afterwards, especially since the 60s and 70s when The New Left movement came into being, we see a rather clear tendency to lay stress on the importance of not reducing people to objects.
    Be that as it may, later developments of Marxism are totally irrelevant for the purposes of using socionics to type philosophers. Aren't they? If we are to correlate aspects of a philosophy to the philosopher's type, and specifically the use of Te or Ti, we have to stick to their original version. If you look at "later developments", you are already contaminating it with someone else's contributions. We don't even know what Marx would have thought of the New Left, do we?
    Later developments of Marxism are not irrelevant, because we are looking at which type of philosophy you are naturally drawn too. All these versions of Marxism has something in common, and Marx's original version has it too. Think of the concept of "alienation". Such a concept is alien to a Te philosopher, but it is an indication of a subjectivistic Ti-based, human (agent-oriented in cotrast to object-oriented) perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Marxism does not relativize truth in the sense you seem to be saying. Marxism's stance is clearly that there is only one truth, that of the laws of history and of class struggle.

    Now, it does say that members of different classes will have different perceptions of the truth - so that, say, a feudal lord can't help but see society (or everything else) through the eyes of his class (which was the reasoning used by later supposed Marxists for very often just killing them all). Which is a perspective that comes naturally to Fe-Ti.

    But that is not the same as admitting that those different "truths" are equally valid -- Marxism is clearly "persuaded" of the rightness of its own truth, and that all the others are wrong.
    It is correct that Marxism favours one "truth" over another, but its basic notion of truth is still clearly relativistic. According to Marxism, there is no objective truth in the sense defined by for example Karl Popper, myself, or any other Te-philosopher. Our concept of truth goes back to Plato -- it's the classical notion of truth as correspondence with reality. Marx and other relativists has other, slightly different, definitions of the concept truth, and all of them relativizes truth to local frameworks, like the working class in Marx's case. The structure of Marxism's understanding of truth is clearly subjectivistic (relativistic), that is Ti.

    Marxism is not about understanding reality, it's about changing it -- chaning it to fit your preconceived version of what it should be like. And the enemy's arguments are often dismissed on the grounds that they are only expressions of a group's interest -- that is another group than the group you should belong to. This kind of thinking is totally non-Te, and it is totally anti-science as science is commonly understood in the empiricist tradition of philosophy -- the Enlightenment.

  11. #51
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    It is correct that Marxism favours one "truth" over another, but its basic notion of truth is still clearly relativistic. According to Marxism, there is no objective truth in the sense defined by for example Karl Popper, myself, or any other Te-philosopher. Our concept of truth goes back to Plato -- it's the classical notion of truth as correspondence with reality. Marx and other relativists has other, slightly different, definitions of the concept truth, and all of them relativizes truth to local frameworks, like the working class in Marx's case. The structure of Marxism's understanding of truth is clearly subjectivistic (relativistic), that is Ti.
    Obviously I don't dispute that Marxism is Ti (I can't think of better examples), what I am questioning is this reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Marxism is not about understanding reality, it's about changing it -- chaning it to fit your preconceived version of what it should be like. And the enemy's arguments are often dismissed on the grounds that they are only expressions of a group's interest -- that is another group than the group you should belong to. This kind of thinking is totally non-Te, and it is totally anti-science as science is commonly understood in the empiricist tradition of philosophy -- the Enlightenment.
    I agree with this, but if Marxism is persuaded of its own truth, does the fact that it also says that what people say can be dismissed as reflecting their own perspectives matter? It's exactly the same as the talk that someone who proposes an alternative interpretation to the Bible is actually "worshipping Satan" or the like. That does not mean that their view is truly relativistic - it means that they think that whoever disagrees with them is evil/idiot/deluded/misguided etc. It does not mean that they accept that, say, the bourgeouis views are equally valid in a relative way.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Marxism is not about understanding reality, it's about changing it -- chaning it to fit your preconceived version of what it should be like. And the enemy's arguments are often dismissed on the grounds that they are only expressions of a group's interest -- that is another group than the group you should belong to. This kind of thinking is totally non-Te, and it is totally anti-science as science is commonly understood in the empiricist tradition of philosophy -- the Enlightenment.
    I agree with this, but if Marxism is persuaded of its own truth, does the fact that it also says that what people say can be dismissed as reflecting their own perspectives matter? It's exactly the same as the talk that someone who proposes an alternative interpretation to the Bible is actually "worshipping Satan" or the like. That does not mean that their view is truly relativistic - it means that they think that whoever disagrees with them is evil/idiot/deluded/misguided etc. It does not mean that they accept that, say, the bourgeouis views are equally valid in a relative way.
    No. It means that the Marxist notion of truth is logically incoherent. There is only one correct definition of the concept truth, and that is the classical one (or perhaps some version of it). What Marxists do (and other relativists as well) is to oscillate between two poles. They criticize other opinions as nothing but expressions of group interests, but when you point out that such a positions is logically impossible to uphold, since everyone belongs to some group, and the claim that truth is group dependent (relative) is also relative and nothing but an expression of a group's interests, they oscillate to a position nearer the other end (the objectivist's).

    The truth is that if there is an objective truth (and of course there is), then the Marxist's talk about group interests and different views depending on your position is totally irrelevant and almost totally uninteresting. So, it is only a technique to confuse your opponent. As I said, the structure of Marxists's thinking is clearly relativistic -- even their notion of truth as a concept.

  13. #53
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Can you explain why you have lumped Feminism with all of this?
    Just to jump ahead of where I know Phaedrus will likely say: While there are different branches of Feminism, many of the influential feminist philosophers come from the Continental tradition of Marx and Kant, which is more associated with . So while there are feminists of all types, many of the feminist philosophers have been about categories and relationships between objects (gender-based ). At least, this is a condensed version of what Phaedrus is likely to post.
    Good guess, Logos. Every version of Feminism has the same basic structure as Marxism. It is about dividing people into groups, and the different groups have different perspectives, different understandings of the world, and there is no objective truth, only the interests of each group, and the most important group is the one you (should) belong to yourself.

    Many (most) versions of Feminism are direct outgrowths of the Marxist (Hegelian) tree. Almost every one of these versions has philosophical constructionism as one of its most important premises. And constructionism is relativistic and clearly Ti. I have written some more about this here: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=5...inism&start=60
    I think that's slightly contaminated with aristocracy.
    I never tried to suggest that it was necessarily Alpha. Since it does in some level pertain to and is Aristocratic, it would most likely be....?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  14. #54
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Marxism is not about understanding reality, it's about changing it -- chaning it to fit your preconceived version of what it should be like. And the enemy's arguments are often dismissed on the grounds that they are only expressions of a group's interest -- that is another group than the group you should belong to. This kind of thinking is totally non-Te, and it is totally anti-science as science is commonly understood in the empiricist tradition of philosophy -- the Enlightenment.
    Ummm. Enlightenment is Ti. At least I always thought it was.

    Ti is about seeing how things interact logically. It doesn't deal with how things "are" per se. That's something it leaves up to the extroverted functions to determine. For example, I consider it important to look at how others percieve reality, and if I see a problem, attempt to correct them, and if they are correct, consider adopting their stance. This is an expression of Ne. Possibly Se is similar, but in a more external way (e.g. perceptions that others are more vocal/obvious about).

    What I don't do is easily accept others' decisive statements regarding what I should/shouldn't do or accept as true. That would be Te. It's not enough that they win a debate regarding a specific example -- it has to be proven on a general level that things really work like that. This is a more involved task, and while more slowly accomplished, is more resistant to change. (Indeed this is what science is about, as I percieve it.) The utility of static functions like Ti and Fi for establishing a more stable society is probably greater, whereas Te and Fe have more power to accelerate progress. The marxist philosophy of continual revolution and change sounds to me more like an excessively dynamic philosophy. Probably there was a bunch of Fe and Te members duking it out, but I get the impression that it was more about Te (coldly logical) than Fe (passionately ethical).

  15. #55
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    No. It means that the Marxist notion of truth is logically incoherent. There is only one correct definition of the concept truth, and that is the classical one (or perhaps some version of it). What Marxists do (and other relativists as well) is to oscillate between two poles. They criticize other opinions as nothing but expressions of group interests, but when you point out that such a positions is logically impossible to uphold, since everyone belongs to some group, and the claim that truth is group dependent (relative) is also relative and nothing but an expression of a group's interests, they oscillate to a position nearer the other end (the objectivist's).

    The truth is that if there is an objective truth (and of course there is), then the Marxist's talk about group interests and different views depending on your position is totally irrelevant and almost totally uninteresting. So, it is only a technique to confuse your opponent. As I said, the structure of Marxists's thinking is clearly relativistic -- even their notion of truth as a concept.
    There's enlightened versions of Ti just as there supposedly is of Te. You're over-generalizing if you intend to label us believers in a subjective reality. I have always seen Ni users as more into that sort of thing. Ti users do generally believe that there's more than one possible logical viewpoint on a given situation (data is rarely sufficiently complete to exclude this), but not that it is impossible to see the truth over the long term via logical means. Indeed, use of Ti would be rendered quite impotent if such an assertion were true, so a Ti would strongly resist it. Perhaps an Fi type would make such an assertion; having a perspective that specific situations can be known through logic, but generalities cannot.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    Enlightenment is Ti. At least I always thought it was.
    I don't think Enlightenment is Ti. The empiricist, critical attitude, where everything should be tested before believed in is one of the corner stones of Enlightenment, and such an attitude is Te. The Modern Project is Te, it's not Ti. And read what Jung says about the difference in Psychological Types. Ti is opposed to the empiricist tradition, which is what the Enlightenment is mostly about. So how can it be Ti?

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    Ti is about seeing how things interact logically.
    Logical reasoning, that is conceptual logic, is not Ti in itself. I think many people misunderstand the true nature of Ti, because they haven't read what Jung says about it. An important aspect of Ti is that it is systematic realization of subjective ideas. They are subjective in the sense that they are coming from the subject, not from outer sources, which Te prefer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    It doesn't deal with how things "are" per se. That's something it leaves up to the extroverted functions to determine. For example, I consider it important to look at how others percieve reality, and if I see a problem, attempt to correct them, and if they are correct, consider adopting their stance. This is an expression of Ne. Possibly Se is similar, but in a more external way (e.g. perceptions that others are more vocal/obvious about).
    It seems like you have misunderstood the functions. What you say might (perhaps) make some sense in an MBTI perspective, but when you say that you "consider it important to look at how others percieve reality, and if I see a problem, attempt to correct them, and if they are correct, consider adopting their stance" you sound like an INTp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    What I don't do is easily accept others' decisive statements regarding what I should/shouldn't do or accept as true. That would be Te.
    No, it wouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    It's not enough that they win a debate regarding a specific example -- it has to be proven on a general level that things really work like that. This is a more involved task, and while more slowly accomplished, is more resistant to change. (Indeed this is what science is about, as I percieve it.)
    Yes, and this would be Te.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    The utility of static functions like Ti and Fi for establishing a more stable society is probably greater, whereas Te and Fe have more power to accelerate progress. The marxist philosophy of continual revolution and change sounds to me more like an excessively dynamic philosophy. Probably there was a bunch of Fe and Te members duking it out, but I get the impression that it was more about Te (coldly logical) than Fe (passionately ethical).
    Now this again shows that you have confused the functions. You don't reason like an INTj here. Maybe you are one of those confused INTps that think that they are INTjs ... (I have been one of those confused "INTjs" myself.)

  17. #57
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    Enlightenment is Ti. At least I always thought it was.
    I don't think Enlightenment is Ti. The empiricist, critical attitude, where everything should be tested before believed in is one of the corner stones of Enlightenment, and such an attitude is Te. The Modern Project is Te, it's not Ti. And read what Jung says about the difference in Psychological Types. Ti is opposed to the empiricist tradition, which is what the Enlightenment is mostly about. So how can it be Ti?
    I have already said this many times, and I will say it over and over and over and over and over and over ----> (infinite) again -- Jung's functions are the starting point for socionics functions, but they are not the "true" socionics descriptions. To insist on using Jung's descriptions as if they were the ultimate socionics "manual" only prevents people from understanding socionics. For those who want to stick to Jung's typology, perfect. For socionics, it's confusing.

    Sure, they are similar enough and can be helpful for socionics, but they are not identical to socionics' descriptions, and you won't find one socionist that says that they are.

    I'm not arguing against your precise point here. I'm arguing against the general principle of referring to Jung's functional descriptions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    What I don't do is easily accept others' decisive statements regarding what I should/shouldn't do or accept as true. That would be Te.
    No, it wouldn't.
    "Decisive statements regarding what I should/shouldn't do or accept as true" is more Se + Ti.


    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    The utility of static functions like Ti and Fi for establishing a more stable society is probably greater, whereas Te and Fe have more power to accelerate progress. The marxist philosophy of continual revolution and change sounds to me more like an excessively dynamic philosophy. Probably there was a bunch of Fe and Te members duking it out, but I get the impression that it was more about Te (coldly logical) than Fe (passionately ethical).
    What you have said has ZERO to do with socionics definitions of static and dynamic.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  18. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Expat... I think your drifting a little too far into the traditionalist paradigm here to be of objective assistance. I suggest taking time out to bring traditionalism back into focus with objectivity. We're missing the point of your argument.

    The force of gravity existed long before Newton said it did. The same goes for Jung's typology and socionics, also: they are models of the same observer-independent phenomena.

  19. #59
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    The force of gravity existed long before Newton said it did. The same goes for Jung's typology and socionics, also: they are models of the same observer-independent phenomena.
    Which is another reason not to stick to Jung's definitions as if they were fixed in stone, is it not?

    My point is not to say that socionics is the ultimate truth - my point is one of definition. If we want to discuss that Jung's original functions are the true ones and that everything departing from that since then was a mistake - sure. We can discuss that. Perhaps it's correct.

    But if one is talking of socionics, the other of Jung's functions, the other of MBTI, as if they were talking of the same things, the result can only be madness. It becomes similar to our own exchange in the wiki when you thought EIE=ENFp.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    The force of gravity existed long before Newton said it did. The same goes for Jung's typology and socionics, also: they are models of the same observer-independent phenomena.
    Exactly. Well put.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Jung's functions are the starting point for socionics functions, but they are not the "true" socionics descriptions.
    Correct. But there is no clear contradiction between them either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    To insist on using Jung's descriptions as if they were the ultimate socionics "manual" only prevents people from understanding socionics. For those who want to stick to Jung's typology, perfect. For socionics, it's confusing.
    It is an empirical fact that people confuse the socionic functions over and over again. Reading Jung's original functions descriptions has helped me to sort things out. Jung has some very important things to say about the subjective character of Ti -- exactly those things that people tend not to associate with Ti, because in Socionics these things are much less clearly expressed, though it is definitely there to see for anyone who looks closely. Simply put, the socionic descriptions of Ti are not good enough. They are lacking some important aspects that should be mentioned. And those aspects are actually more explicitly stated in MBTT and Jung.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Sure, they are similar enough and can be helpful for socionics, but they are not identical to socionics' descriptions, and you won't find one socionist that says that they are.
    I have never said that the descriptions of the functions are identical. Of course they are not. But they are talking about the same reality -- the empirical referents that those descriptions refer to.

  21. #61

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    But if one is talking of socionics, the other of Jung's functions, the other of MBTI, as if they were talking of the same things, the result can only be madness. It becomes similar to our own exchange in the wiki when you thought EIE=ENFp.
    Jung and Socionics are talking about the same functions (= "things"). MBTI is not talking about the same functions when they use same name for them, but MBTI and Socionics are talking about the same types, and they label them the same. If Luke has typed himself correctly as an INTP in MBTT (which he says in one of his posts), then he is an ILI/INTp -- it is as simple as that.

  22. #62
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Jung's functions are the starting point for socionics functions, but they are not the "true" socionics descriptions.
    Correct. But there is no clear contradiction between them either.
    On the contrary. It varies, but in some cases there are clear contradictions. For instance, a central aspect of in socionics is the "volitional pressure" aspect. That is the essence of this function in socionics descriptions. Yet that barely comes across from reading Jung's Extraverted Sensing type description. If you dig enough, perhaps you can find a few references; but it's not the overall impression one gets from reading that description. That's just one example.



    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Reading Jung's original functions descriptions has helped me to sort things out.
    No comment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    I have never said that the descriptions of the functions are identical. Of course they are not. But they are talking about the same reality -- the empirical referents that those descriptions refer to.
    They are different attempts to describe the same reality, it doesn't mean that they are both equally correct.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  23. #63
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    The force of gravity existed long before Newton said it did. The same goes for Jung's typology and socionics, also: they are models of the same observer-independent phenomena.
    Which is another reason not to stick to Jung's definitions as if they were fixed in stone, is it not?

    My point is not to say that socionics is the ultimate truth - my point is one of definition. If we want to discuss that Jung's original functions are the true ones and that everything departing from that since then was a mistake - sure. We can discuss that. Perhaps it's correct.

    But if one is talking of socionics, the other of Jung's functions, the other of MBTI, as if they were talking of the same things, the result can only be madness. It becomes similar to our own exchange in the wiki when you thought EIE=ENFp.
    I understand and respect your point of view here. But I also understand that we are extinguishment types, living in different worlds so to speak. Your job as a Te is to sort things according to practical relavence and concrete testability. Something like an MBTI-socionics correlation has to rate pretty low there, when you can simply tell people to forget about MBTT while learning Socionics. But I'm not really even looking at it in practical terms... I just want to adapt my MBTT understandings to be more valid in ultimate terms, see the connections that exist or fail to exist. It's a totally different perspective, and I respect that you don't need to care about it.

    I think Phaedrus fits more to my side of the line than yours, and that it is an extinguishment difference rather than a mirror difference. I also agree that Jung's descriptions probably have potentially misleading elements, and aren't 100% compatible with Augusta's or modern socionics.

  24. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    The force of gravity existed long before Newton said it did. The same goes for Jung's typology and socionics, also: they are models of the same observer-independent phenomena.
    Which is another reason not to stick to Jung's definitions as if they were fixed in stone, is it not?

    My point is not to say that socionics is the ultimate truth - my point is one of definition. If we want to discuss that Jung's original functions are the true ones and that everything departing from that since then was a mistake - sure. We can discuss that. Perhaps it's correct.

    But if one is talking of socionics, the other of Jung's functions, the other of MBTI, as if they were talking of the same things, the result can only be madness. It becomes similar to our own exchange in the wiki when you thought EIE=ENFp.
    I didn't notice that point ("Jung's functions being the true functions") being made in this thread. Actually, what you just suggested as "madness" seems to me a lot like discussion between quasi-identicals... hmm, this discussion seems intractable.

    The problem is you - Expat - are viewing truth as an authority, while others view it as things . (not implying that you alone are the problem, obviously; everyone is a part of the problem, including myself.)

    Getting to the bottom of this argument:
    with exertion sees the world as a heiarchy of viewpoints: this viewpoint allows this viewpoint, allows this viewpoint, etc. Without an underlying viewpoint, the entire edifice falls apart. Similarly, an invalid viewpoint corrupts the entire structure of PoV.

    So to Expat (who has said on wikisocion that he is a ESI/ISFj exertion type), having the correct viewpoint for everything is a matter of vital importance.

  25. #65
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I understand and respect your point of view here. But I also understand that we are extinguishment types, living in different worlds so to speak. Your job as a Te is to sort things according to practical relavence and concrete testability. Something like an MBTI-socionics correlation has to rate pretty low there, when you can simply tell people to forget about MBTT while learning Socionics. But I'm not really even looking at it in practical terms... I just want to adapt my MBTT understandings to be more valid in ultimate terms, see the connections that exist or fail to exist. It's a totally different perspective, and I respect that you don't need to care about it.
    I'm not even thinking of practical relevance. I'm talking of definitions. We can discuss all you like, for instance, the relationship between static/dynamic in socionics and MBTT, no problem. But if you start from the erroneous assumption that they mean the same thing, you're already on the wrong track and misleading others.


    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I think Phaedrus fits more to my side of the line than yours, and that it is an extinguishment difference rather than a mirror difference.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  26. #66

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I'm not even thinking of practical relevance. I'm talking of definitions.
    Being a Te type, Expat, you will realize the futility of talking about definitions if you read Karl Popper's Appendix in volume II of The Open Society and Its Enemies. You insist on talking about the definitions of the functions here (exactly the phenomenon I have tried to teach people to avoid) instead of the functions themselves, that is the referents. And arguing over definitions is a real source of confusion in these (and other) matters.

  27. #67
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Being a Te type, Expat, you will realize the futility of talking about definitions if you read Karl Popper's Appendix in volume II of The Open Society and Its Enemies. You insist on talking about the definitions of the functions here (exactly the phenomenon I have tried to teach people to avoid) instead of the functions themselves, that is the referents. And arguing over definitions is a real source of confusion in these (and other) matters.
    As far as I know, we have no proof that functions exist in any way. As you yourself like to point out, the original, "raw" empirical evidence is that there are different types of people. The functions are theoretical constructs trying to organize those different types of people into a model - in socionics' case, a model explaining and predicting the intertype relationships.

    Therefore, if we are talking of Te and Ti, as theoretical constructs referring to observable phenomena, we have to make sure that "my Te" and "your Te" refer to the same observable phenomena - that is, to agree on exactly what we mean when saying "Te". If (say) when writing "Se" you refer to phenomena as described best by Jung's Extraverted Sensing type, and I write "Se" thinking of the socionics function as per Augusta and others, we can talk about "Se" as much as we like - we'll be talking of different things, like people speaking different languages. What would that accomplish?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  28. #68
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Besides, that line of argument makes no sense. The reason why I started this discussion now is because you, Phaedrus, were referring Luke to Jung's descriptions to understand Te and Ti. So what you were telling him was, in effect, "check how Jung defines Te and Ti". My line of argumentation is simply that that is unwise in the context of socionics. For you to say now that definitions don't matter is, to me, simply - insane.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    As far as I know, we have no proof that functions exist in any way. As you yourself like to point out, the original, "raw" empirical evidence is that there are different types of people. The functions are theoretical constructs trying to organize those different types of people into a model - in socionics' case, a model explaining and predicting the intertype relationships.
    Yes, I agree with everything you say here. That's why I think we should focus on how the types actually think, what their attitudes are, and, for example, what kind of philosophy feels natural to them. What we should always keep in mind is the real types and not bother too much how they are defined.

    In his description of Ti Jung is talking about an important aspect of what it is like to be an INTj. That's why I suggest every person who thinks he or she is an INTj to read Psychological Types, because if they don't recognize in themselves those aspects of Ti, that Jung mentions as essential to Ti in contrast to Te, maybe they are not INTjs but some other type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Therefore, if we are talking of Te and Ti, as theoretical constructs referring to observable phenomena, we have to make sure that "my Te" and "your Te" refer to the same observable phenomena - that is, to agree on exactly what we mean when saying "Te".
    No, we don't. What we must make sure is that we are talking about the same types, the same groups of people. We can do that without talking about functions, but we can still talk about their thinking processes and their differences. We know how INTjs think, we know how ENTjs think, we know how INTps think. And we know the nature of their relationships with other types. So, why do we have to define the functions exactly when we don't even know whether they exist or not?

  30. #70
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    What we must make sure is that we are talking about the same types, the same groups of people. We can do that without talking about functions, but we can still talk about their thinking processes and their differences. We know how INTjs think, we know how ENTjs think, we know how INTps think. And we know the nature of their relationships with other types. So, why do we have to define the functions exactly when we don't even know whether they exist or not?
    I kind of agree with this. But I don't think INTj and MBTT-INTJ are the same type.

    I don't know for sure that Jung was talking about LII when he mentioned Ti. He may have indeed had ILI primarily in mind, for example. Or maybe not. I'll have to re-read it to decide for sure. It seems like "introverted person who thinks" is easy enough to confuse with "introverted thinking dominated person". And he didn't seem to think there was much difference between quasi-identicals.

  31. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung makes it quite clear throughout his work that he was talking about ISTjs and INTjs with regard to . (that is, the traits we now see as "ISTj" and "INTj" respectively)

    The best thing: forget MBTT and focus on socionics. MBTI descriptions frequently hold "clues"... but it's a longstanding problem of MBTT that when you try to trace the descriptions to the function flow, you come up short. Socionics descriptions parallel their corresponding function flows, so Socionics is the superior model.

  32. #72
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I don't know for sure that Jung was talking about LII when he mentioned Ti. He may have indeed had ILI primarily in mind, for example. Or maybe not. I'll have to re-read it to decide for sure. It seems like "introverted person who thinks" is easy enough to confuse with "introverted thinking dominated person". And he didn't seem to think there was much difference between quasi-identicals.
    Great. That is precisely my impression when reading Jung's Introverted Thinking type: "introverted person who is a thinker" rather than Ti-dominant. And I fully disagree with tcaudilllg: I don't think that description applies well to LSIs.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  33. #73
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    No, we don't. What we must make sure is that we are talking about the same types, the same groups of people. We can do that without talking about functions, but we can still talk about their thinking processes and their differences. We know how INTjs think, we know how ENTjs think, we know how INTps think. And we know the nature of their relationships with other types. So, why do we have to define the functions exactly when we don't even know whether they exist or not?
    If we talk about them at all - as you were with Luke, and referring him to Jung - then we have to agree on what we are talking about.

    The functions may not exist biologically (which is what I meant), but that doesn't mean that they don't fulfill a purpose. They explain how the types interact. I refer you to our little exchange in the thread discussing XoX's type, when you were puzzled as yo why I was focusing so much into the Fi>Fe preference to define what an INTp is. And for socionics, a Fi>Fe preference is as important as anything else to define what an INTp is, because that is what explains why they conflict with ESFjs and have ESFps as duals - which is the core of socionics, which is not really a type theory, but a relationship theory. To discuss an INTp over and over again focusing on your favorite philosophers and their "quest for truth" without discussing on their relationships, is to discuss something - but not socionics. The relationships are the socionics types, and it is the functions that explain the relationshios. It is absolutely pointless in socionics to discuss Te, for instance, without understanding (as you, Phaedrus, clearly do not) why precisely the ISFj and the INFj crave it above all, and the ISFp and INFp loathe it above all. This is a matter you do not understand, and that is precisely why you downplay its significance and prefer to discuss other things. Which is why your types are something, but not socionics types.

    And I'm done here, by the way. Unless I remember a few other Alpha philosophers for Logos.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  34. #74

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    But I don't think INTj and MBTT-INTJ are the same type.
    They are. And you are either not an LII, or you are not an MBTT INTP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I don't know for sure that Jung was talking about LII when he mentioned Ti. He may have indeed had ILI primarily in mind, for example. Or maybe not. I'll have to re-read it to decide for sure.
    I recommend re-reading it many times. For a long time I was under the delusion that my own thinking process is best described as introverted thinking in Jung's sense, and that his introverted thinking is the same as Ti in MBTT.

    But they are not the same. Jung's Ti and MBTT's Ti are two different phenomena that has very little in common. On the other hand it is of course possible that Jung's description of the outward behaviours of introverted thinkers is influenced by real life ILIs, if he mistyped many ILIs as introverted thinkers. But since Jung was an LII himself, he has not misdescribed the inner processes of introverted thinkers that much. He knew what introverted thinking is like from personal experience of it.

  35. #75

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    And I fully disagree with tcaudilllg: I don't think that description applies well to LSIs.
    I'm not sure to what degree Jung's description of introverted thinking applies to LSIs, but I fully agree with tcaudillg that it applies to LIIs. And of course Socionics is a superior model to MBTT. The main contribution of MBTI is as a large collection of statistical facts about the types. In that respect it is superior to Socionics and can be used as a great source of information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I refer you to our little exchange in the thread discussing XoX's type, when you were puzzled as yo why I was focusing so much into the Fi>Fe preference to define what an INTp is. And for socionics, a Fi>Fe preference is as important as anything else to define what an INTp is, because that is what explains why they conflict with ESFjs and have ESFps as duals - which is the core of socionics, which is not really a type theory, but a relationship theory.
    That's where you are wrong. Without types no relationships. At the bottom of Socionics are the types, and the types are the same in MBTT and Socionics.

    We have two theories about the same empirical phenomena, and as I said in my previous post, MBTI has contributed a lot to our understanding of the types by giving us a lot of statistical data from which many general type patterns emerge. Socionics's greatest contribution to our understanding of the types are the intertype relations and visual identification (which indirectly also makes it clear that the types have a biological foundation).

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    The relationships are the socionics types
    No, they are not. That seems to be a widespread delusion, but I am slightly surprised that you haven't seen through it.

  36. #76
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The difference between your understanding of Socionics and many other's, Phaedrus, is what you view as essential. I do not believe that types are relegated to the little boxes of descriptions written up by others. The very opposite is true: types can permeate in very large degrees from the most common aspects of the type. An unintelligent NT is not going to be able to think as rationally as that particular temperament is often purported to---even though that will be their aim and hence their claim to fame as an NT type. It is the intent that defines them, their mental content that makes them as such.

    Such is why I say that functions are essential. They are the intent, the content of their minds that makes them the types that they are. Even though their external behavior may very well contradict what one would expect from such a type, various situations make it so that they act in that way. There is no behavior so bizarre for a particular type that they will not behave as such. What makes a type is the information they use, how they organize it, and how it is "metabolized"(I can't think of a better word at the moment, but I know this word is horrible and obscure). At least, this is true in Socionics. This is why an INTj may act like an MBTI INTP and still be INTj. Do you see? A type can behave a certain way and have certain thoughts that precede this behavior that is completely the opposite of what one might expect for such behavior.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  37. #77
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    But I don't think INTj and MBTT-INTJ are the same type.
    They are. And you are either not an LII, or you are not an MBTT INTP.
    That is terrible logic. Expat was supposedly an INTJ in MBTI, but in Socionics he is ENTj. You do not have to have the same MBTI and Socionics type, though it should matter if you are in the general area.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  38. #78
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    That is terrible logic. Expat was supposedly an INTJ in MBTI, but in Socionics he is ENTj. You do not have to have the same MBTI and Socionics type, though it should matter if you are in the general area.
    That's not quite correct. I neither know, nor much care, what my "official" MBTI type would be according to the official manuals, professional MBTI typers, etc, etc. In online pop MBTI tests I tend to be most often INTJ (and INTP, ENTP, ENTJ on occasion), and of the available profiles in sites such as typelogic and personalitypage I identify better with INTJ than with the others (also because INTJ profiles tend to be better written for some reason). However, I'm not saying that my "correct" MBTI type is INTJ. There is a case that it would be ENTJ, if the correct MBTI interpretation of "extroversion" is not really the "party-going" one as the most popular tests suggest.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  39. #79
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    That is terrible logic. Expat was supposedly an INTJ in MBTI, but in Socionics he is ENTj. You do not have to have the same MBTI and Socionics type, though it should matter if you are in the general area.
    That's not quite correct. I neither know, nor much care, what my "official" MBTI type would be according to the official manuals, professional MBTI typers, etc, etc. In online pop MBTI tests I tend to be most often INTJ (and INTP, ENTP, ENTJ on occasion), and of the available profiles in sites such as typelogic and personalitypage I identify better with INTJ than with the others (also because INTJ profiles tend to be better written for some reason). However, I'm not saying that my "correct" MBTI type is INTJ. There is a case that it would be ENTJ, if the correct MBTI interpretation of "extroversion" is not really the "party-going" one as the most popular tests suggest.
    Okay, well MBTI results do not necessarily match, or must match, a given person's Socionic's results.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  40. #80
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    But they are not the same. Jung's Ti and MBTT's Ti are two different phenomena that has very little in common. On the other hand it is of course possible that Jung's description of the outward behaviours of introverted thinkers is influenced by real life ILIs, if he mistyped many ILIs as introverted thinkers. But since Jung was an LII himself, he has not misdescribed the inner processes of introverted thinkers that much. He knew what introverted thinking is like from personal experience of it.
    Some would say he was wrong about that...

    Augusta's theory (at least my interpretation thereof) states that information can be divided into aspects called fields, which are basically patterns of interaction between objects, and bodies, which are objects that interact with each other. Fields we tend to see subjectively and objects we tend to view objectively, but I'm not so sure this is a clear-cut distinction as Jung seemed to portray it. Augusta also talks about the more hidden "internal", and more explicit "external" information aspects.

    In a Ti user (myself, at any rate), you'll see a lot of "in my opinion" kinds of information. "According to my interpretation." It's an invitation to the other person to attempt to replicate the logical association in their own mind, and a tacit admission that the association is based on a certain complex set of data that could contain inaccuracies, so handle with care. Unlike Ni, the logical progression is not unknown/hidden, it's just very involved and tenative. After a time, it may become so certain that the qualifiers seem unnecessary, but by then it may be in the extrovert's court and I tend to naturally change the subject to some more complex aspect of the matter.

    Ni gives an inner knowing, where the association is considered valid regardless of a set logical progression. I have used Ni, but not in the leading capacity -- I tend to avoid it unless necessary. It sometimes fills in "gaps" where my Ti hasn't reached yet, but does not exactly fill me with confidence. Ne on the other hand, is simple speculation that certain well-defined things may be associated; I think I use this quite often. Since it involves hidden aspects of concrete bodies, we're talking about associations that can be dispelled or strengthened by fairly simple inquiry.

    Te is more about "as a matter of fact" kinds of info. There's nothing hidden or deeply involved about it, since it applies directly to the external dynamics of objects. But it doesn't address or attempt to address the static, subtle interactions between objects, or the more hidden dynamics of objects.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •